Ink Block (Boston Herald) | 300 Harrison Avenue | South End

Re: Boston Herald Property Redevelopment

at the first Albany/Harrison meeting the city/bra person said we should look into bringing back something like the old street pattern with smaller blocks and the woman who represented the owner of the Herald yelled out something like - oh no you won't.

Oh heavens to Betsy, noooo! The pure, unadulterated horror! Nooooo! Small blocks?! THINK OF THE CHILDREN! Won't somebody please think of the children! They might get lost because we'll double the amount of streets in the locale!
 
Re: Boston Herald Property Redevelopment

why would she care since they are selling the property?

Smaller parcels make it more difficult for the Herald to sell them off individually to a potential developer at the highest price. They don't want the extra legwork.

This is clearly an example where the city should buy back a property it previously had seized and sold to a private developer and return it to its original state. This is a reversal of the urban renewal mess and the city should be taking a bigger role in righting a wrong.
 
Re: Boston Herald Property Redevelopment

Op Ed on Boston.com

Big site needs big plan
Modest redo for Herald plant falls flat
The Boston Herald sits on a mammoth 6-acre parcel in the South End. (David L. Ryan/Globe Staff)
By Paul McMorrow
June 17, 2011
FIGHTS OVER development in Boston usually pit overreaching builders against neighbors clawing at dense structures. It’s rarely the locals’ job to urge builders to show a little more initiative. So it’s a measure of just how unambitious the plans for the redevelopment of the Boston Herald’s headquarters are that the newspaper’s South End neighbors aren’t complaining about shadows or traffic. They’re comparing it to something you’d find in the suburbs.
The scheme to build an apartment and retail complex at the corner of Harrison Avenue and Herald Street landed with a thud inside City Hall last week. The Boston Redevelopment Authority hasn’t officially commented on the Herald proposal, but word is that it caught the agency off guard. And the last thing any Boston developer wants to do is surprise the BRA.
The Herald redevelopment bid was unexpected because its backers had recently been told that what they’re selling won’t fly with their South End neighbors. It’s routine for developers to feel out abutters before filing anything formal at City Hall, and when project co-owner National Development showed their preliminary designs around the neighborhood, they were told to go home and do more work.
For the past year, a BRA panel has been laying the groundwork for a dramatic rezoning of the Harrison Avenue and Albany Street corridors. The BRA wants to strengthen pedestrian activity and take full advantage of development opportunities. The Herald site represents one of the biggest redevelopment plays the panel has been weighing. The mammoth 6-acre parcel could extend the South End’s recent building boom to a marginal end of the neighborhood.
If done right, the project could also undo the scars of urban renewal. The Herald currently sits on top of blocks once known as the New York Streets. The tenement-lined blocks were leveled in one of Boston’s earliest experiments with slum clearance. The project, conceived in 1952, consolidated 14 city blocks into five, in the name of growing industry along the Southeast Expressway.
Fifty-three years after the Herald moved to the neighborhood, development has flipped upside down. Housing is displacing underutilized industrial facilities, and the super-blocks that slum clearance created have become impediments to vibrant neighborhoods. The BRA’s Harrison-Albany rezoning plan favors the restoration of the fine-grain pedestrian scale of the New York Streets. It currently recommends narrowing Harrison Avenue and chopping up impenetrable super-blocks with new roadways. It would trade generous height allowances for new infrastructure: Current zoning caps development at the Herald site at 70 feet, but under tentative plans, the BRA would allow construction of 150 to 200 feet, provided the development scheme improves the streets around it.
The BRA previously used height allowances to spur the creation of a rich, pedestrian-friendly environment along Boylston Street in the Fenway. The agency is offering up the same deal along Harrison and Albany. It’s asking developers to recreate a neighborhood that was obliterated a half-century ago, and allowing them to pay for the job by constructing significant buildings. As in the Fenway, residents support the bargain.
Herald owner Patrick Purcell and National Development haven’t taken the bait, though. They took an urban opportunity, and have responded with what neighbors are deriding as a suburban solution. Under current plans, the Herald’s 6-acre super-block would remain virtually intact. Developers would save money by reusing the Herald plant’s existing foundation, and construct an apartment complex that isn’t much larger than the current building. All of it would drown in a sea of parking.
Good neighborhoods need people. Density explains why portions of Harrison bustle on a Friday night, while the area around the Herald building is dark and desolate. The Herald plant’s redevelopment could create density to breathe new life into its end of the neighborhood. But the current redevelopment plan, which works within old zoning parameters, isn’t nearly big enough to do the job. It’s not even close to being the size that the BRA and South End residents have been asking for for months. Given all that, the proposal on the table looks like a cynical play, like the current plan is all the developers can afford to build today, and they’re too impatient to wait for the market to support a more meaningful redevelopment scheme. They’re rushing to build any building, at the expense of building up a neighborhood.
Paul McMorrow is an associate editor at CommonWealth magazine. His column appears regularly in the Globe.

Link: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e.../articles/2011/06/17/big_site_needs_big_plan/
 
Re: Boston Herald Property Redevelopment

This site is part of two recent and ongoing planning initiatives, and the National Development proposal completely misses the mark under both plans. Both the Chinatown Masterplan 2010 and the Harrison-Albany Corridor Initiative call for increasing the street density in the New York Street area; creating significant streetcapes; removal of surface parking and development of a small block, livable environment with signifant mixed use density. I also believe several of the street are slated to be narrowed (the urban renewal designs from the 60's are for trucking, not people!).

I hope that the BRA will send National Development back to the drawingboard. The proposal is totally inappropriate.
 
Re: Boston Herald Property Redevelopment

Three points:

First -- Since Newspaprs are pretty much just places for people to do word processing with the product either printed on paper or send out over the Internet -- the Herald should return to downtown ideally to some where near to Newspaper Ally -- and they should crate a big LED display on a marque just above the ground floor. In fact the Herald would be a great anchor tenant for the Filenes Hole in the Ground

Second -- putting back the past street grid and look is unreasonable -- however there should be 2 or 3 blocks where there is one and each could feature a cluster of buildings of varying heights

Third that area can be a part of needed transit between the BCEC vicinity and the Back Bay Hotel cluster and while that is being implemented there should be stop at Herald Square
 
Re: Boston Herald Property Redevelopment

Second -- putting back the past street grid and look is unreasonable

How is this unreasonable? It's the best idea I've seen yet relating to this site.



And the Herald anchoring Filene's? The Herald is making some serious cuts just to avoid falling as low as the Globe.
 
Re: Boston Herald Property Redevelopment

It seems like this project is being done fast and cheap to start a cash flow. Once the area is fully developed this project can be torn down and a bigger project built when it's more lucrative.
 
Re: Boston Herald Property Redevelopment

It seems like this project is being done fast and cheap to start a cash flow. Once the area is fully developed this project can be torn down and a bigger project built when it's more lucrative.

With the new media all about Nooks and Krannies -- the Herald could have a renaissance as it dumps most of the atoms for Bits - see the Center for Bits and Atoms at the MIT Media Lab

But more seriously if the developer gave over some of the ground floor exterior to the Herald and possibly one of the TV Stations (WBZ?) -- for cheap -- and they took some space inside as tenants -- there would be a downtown venue where people could have connectivity see the Big Story and download the video to you box and grab a Latte before hopping on the Red Line back to Alewife

Tourists might frequent the area to see media in action

Other media-centric companies might congregate in the area for cuddling purposes

Interestingly there is a Telecom Hotel (place with a lot of telecom / internet gear and connectivity at the top of the Macy's across the street

Media Bars and such might then spring back up -- as in the old days of Newspaper Row (just down the street coincidentally) when there were 8 or 9 downtown newspaper offices
 
Re: Boston Herald Property Redevelopment

Beyond a nostalgic nod to the past, what good reason would there be to recreate a neighborhood of low-rise, dense streets? How is that highest, best use? The housing would be prohibitively expensive to more than very few (even more so than other in-town housing). The location is less than prime (there IS a eight/ten lane highway to one side, and a eight lane highway to another).

Apartment complexes and offices / retail seems like the best bet, to me.

And I love the idea of more transportation. Can't the archBoston proposal for SL 2 go through here?
 
Re: Boston Herald Property Redevelopment

Who said the dense streets had to be low rise? 8-10 stories on a tight grid would be quite European.
 
Re: Boston Herald Property Redevelopment

Who said the dense streets had to be low rise? 8-10 stories on a tight grid would be quite European.

Oh, you (Commie/Fascist/Socialist/Nazi/Liberal/Frenchman). I love this idea.
 
Re: Boston Herald Property Redevelopment

remember that Paris has only a few buildings much taller than 6 stories -- one misplaced tower (Tour de Montprnasse) and a handful of modern governmental mid-rise stuff such as the Bibliothèque nationale de France, Treasury, Some hotels, a few office buildings and a cluster of miss-placed lower income residences -- see the following for the list of tall buildings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_the_Paris_region
Note the list includes all tall buildings inside of an area surrounding Paris comparable to the area inside I-495 in Boston


Most of Paris' office buildings, hotels, residences and government buildings are substantially shorter than their counterparts in Boston -- yet Paris has a population of more than 3 Million within its city limits

By the way -- those of you of "if Boston doesn't build such and such taller than 20 stories -- well then it can't be world Class" -- might be interested in the following quote from the same page as the list of tall buildings in Paris:

" The Paris urban area contains the most skyscrapers of any metropolitan area in the European Union:[1] as of early 2009, there are 14 skyscrapers that reach a roof height of at least 150 meters (492 feet), compared to 12 such skyscrapers in London, 10 in Frankfurt, 5 in Madrid, and 4 in Warsaw. Most of Paris's high-rise buildings are located in three distinct areas; La Défense, located in the western inner suburbs in the département of the Hauts-de-Seine, Italie 13, located in the southern half of the 13th arrondissement, and the Front de Seine, located in the 15th arrondissement. "
 
Re: Boston Herald Property Redevelopment

remember that Paris has only a few buildings much taller than 6 stories -- one misplaced tower (Tour de Montprnasse) and a handful of modern governmental mid-rise stuff such as the Bibliothèque nationale de France, Treasury, Some hotels, a few office buildings and a cluster of miss-placed lower income residences -- see the following for the list of tall buildings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_the_Paris_region
Note the list includes all tall buildings inside of an area surrounding Paris comparable to the area inside I-495 in Boston


Most of Paris' office buildings, hotels, residences and government buildings are substantially shorter than their counterparts in Boston -- yet Paris has a population of more than 3 Million within its city limits

By the way -- those of you of "if Boston doesn't build such and such taller than 20 stories -- well then it can't be world Class" -- might be interested in the following quote from the same page as the list of tall buildings in Paris:

" The Paris urban area contains the most skyscrapers of any metropolitan area in the European Union:[1] as of early 2009, there are 14 skyscrapers that reach a roof height of at least 150 meters (492 feet), compared to 12 such skyscrapers in London, 10 in Frankfurt, 5 in Madrid, and 4 in Warsaw. Most of Paris's high-rise buildings are located in three distinct areas; La Défense, located in the western inner suburbs in the département of the Hauts-de-Seine, Italie 13, located in the southern half of the 13th arrondissement, and the Front de Seine, located in the 15th arrondissement. "

Just like how you can make an argument with a couple of examples of world class cities such as Paris that are mainly mid-rises, you can make an argument of world class cities that have many high-rises and supertalls. However a large majority of the of Alpha Global Cities contains tall skyscrapers and even supertalls so the former argument is quite weak.
 
Re: Boston Herald Property Redevelopment

Hypothesis: supertalls are more likely to be built in an "Alpha Global City" than a "Beta Global City" ... but so what?

Would building a few supertalls in a "Beta" turn that city into an "Alpha"? Hypothesis: No.

If a "Beta" increases its world visibility by other means - global finance, education, industry, political organizations, global transit links, and so forth - will it be more likely to attract supertalls? Maybe: even here in the US we have "Alpha regions" with no skyscrapers. Washington and Silicon Valley, for example.

My point is that there's no causality, and at the end of the day the existence of "supertalls" is more an aesthetic preference (more an aerial one than a street-level one, I might add) than a steppingstone towards Alpha-ness. So let's stop the "tall buildings are world class" argument, can we? If you think tall buildings are cool and awesome and look super-rad on a skyline panorama, just say so. At least that's honest.
 
Re: Boston Herald Property Redevelopment

This site is directly in line with a runway at Logan. Nothing very tall and lofty will be built here. Let's at least make it classy and lovely and all that jazz by restoring the old 'hood.
 
Re: Boston Herald Property Redevelopment

Hypothesis: supertalls are more likely to be built in an "Alpha Global City" than a "Beta Global City" ... but so what?

Would building a few supertalls in a "Beta" turn that city into an "Alpha"? Hypothesis: No.

If a "Beta" increases its world visibility by other means - global finance, education, industry, political organizations, global transit links, and so forth - will it be more likely to attract supertalls? Maybe: even here in the US we have "Alpha regions" with no skyscrapers. Washington and Silicon Valley, for example.

My point is that there's no causality, and at the end of the day the existence of "supertalls" is more an aesthetic preference (more an aerial one than a street-level one, I might add) than a steppingstone towards Alpha-ness. So let's stop the "tall buildings are world class" argument, can we? If you think tall buildings are cool and awesome and look super-rad on a skyline panorama, just say so. At least that's honest.

I'm not one of those who think that Boston should build tall for tall sake. However, while there is no clear causation, the lack of major development can be an indication for a lack of foreign (and when I mean foreign, I mean anything outside of the city) business investment into the city. As you have stated, high-rises are mainly a product of "visibility" or in other word, high economic activity. What does it tell you about a city that isn't seeing much development?

Also, any capital city of a major and powerful nation would be an Alpha City, whether its large or not so I'm not seeing DC as an anomaly.

Also, I'm not calling for a skyscraper here. I'm just responding to whiglander's post, stating that an argument can be built in both ways.
 
Re: Boston Herald Property Redevelopment

By the way -- those of you of "if Boston doesn't build such and such taller than 20 stories -- well then it can't be world Class" -- might be interested in the following quote from the same page as the list of tall buildings in Paris:

" The Paris urban area contains the most skyscrapers of any metropolitan area in the European Union:[1] as of early 2009, there are 14 skyscrapers that reach a roof height of at least 150 meters (492 feet), compared to 12 such skyscrapers in London, 10 in Frankfurt, 5 in Madrid, and 4 in Warsaw. Most of Paris's high-rise buildings are located in three distinct areas; La Défense, located in the western inner suburbs in the département of the Hauts-de-Seine, Italie 13, located in the southern half of the 13th arrondissement, and the Front de Seine, located in the 15th arrondissement. "

The fallacy of this argument is that all of these cities are currently thinking bigger than Boston. For example...

Paris currently has 2 more 150+ meter buildings U/C, Tour Majunga and Tour Carpe Diem, and also has plans to build multiple supertalls, including the Tours Hermitage twins http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=634777

London has 4-5 of these skyscrapers U/C, including the supertall Shard http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=418897&page=368 More are on the way

Frankfurt has 3 such skyscrapers U/C, including the nearly completed 200 meter Tower 185. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=505636&page=53

Madrid wasn't even on the (skyscraper) map, but recently built this: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=391659&page=108

Warsaw has a couple skyscrapers U/C, including Zlota 44: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=257171&page=33
Also it has approved multiple 200+ meter projects including the Warsaw Spire which is currently in prep: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=596467&page=6

All of these dense European cities seem to understand the value of having taller buildings, and the designs show it isn't just about square footage (meter-age?) either. So, in short: London's skyline is exploding, Paris is getting taller and bolder architecture, Frankfurt is beefing itself up, Warsaw is getting denser and taller, Madrid just built a skyline defining cluster (for those of you who didn't look, it's 4 Hancock sized towers that were all built simultaneously), and Boston is adding a few short, blocky towers to the waterfront... Compared to these European cities, our skyline will soon look ancient.
 
Re: Boston Herald Property Redevelopment

Beyond a nostalgic nod to the past, what good reason would there be to recreate a neighborhood of low-rise, dense streets? How is that highest, best use? The housing would be prohibitively expensive to more than very few (even more so than other in-town housing). The location is less than prime (there IS a eight/ten lane highway to one side, and a eight lane highway to another).

Apartment complexes and offices / retail seems like the best bet, to me.
Sounds like a great argument for Charles River Park. Jerome Rappaport couldn't have said it better.
 
Re: Boston Herald Property Redevelopment

The fallacy of this argument is that all of these cities are currently thinking bigger than Boston. For example...

Paris currently has 2 more 150+ meter buildings U/C, Tour Majunga and Tour Carpe Diem, and also has plans to build multiple supertalls, including the Tours Hermitage twins http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=634777

London has 4-5 of these skyscrapers U/C, including the supertall Shard http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=418897&page=368 More are on the way

Frankfurt has 3 such skyscrapers U/C, including the nearly completed 200 meter Tower 185. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=505636&page=53

Madrid wasn't even on the (skyscraper) map, but recently built this: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=391659&page=108

Warsaw has a couple skyscrapers U/C, including Zlota 44: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=257171&page=33
Also it has approved multiple 200+ meter projects including the Warsaw Spire which is currently in prep: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=596467&page=6

All of these dense European cities seem to understand the value of having taller buildings, and the designs show it isn't just about square footage (meter-age?) either. So, in short: London's skyline is exploding, Paris is getting taller and bolder architecture, Frankfurt is beefing itself up, Warsaw is getting denser and taller, Madrid just built a skyline defining cluster (for those of you who didn't look, it's 4 Hancock sized towers that were all built simultaneously), and Boston is adding a few short, blocky towers to the waterfront... Compared to these European cities, our skyline will soon look ancient.

And Rome and Athens do they have to have 200 m towers to not "look ancient" -- not necessarily critical -- just asking?
 

Back
Top